gregor herrmann dijo [Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:00:33PM +0100]: > > That's good, the desire to have it public does not equate to a desire or > > need for me to be there. IMO it's just important that this doesn't > > happen behind closed doors again like last time. > > AFAICS the process for DC20 and DC21 seems to be the same: > - public review meetings for the bids > - a private decision meeting of the committee > > I'd be happy to learn that my impression about the planned procedure > for the DC21 decision is wrong, I might easily have missed something. > > Personally I much prefer public decisions. FWIW, we are still pending to come to a conclusion regarding DC21. This has been a tough process, and we will soon come to a conclusion. Yes, I have been part of several prior DebConf bid-choosing teams, and yes, sometimes the decisions are easier to get to. Private (side-channel?) communication between committee/choosing team members _always_ happens, but we have always tried to make the reasoning available to the Debian community; this time it will not be different. Most probably, the results will be announced by mail (and not communicated during a meeting), because the bid review process has led us to need to decide in this way. I cannot speak for the previously appointed DebConf Committee¹, but for the iteration I have been delegated for, I can promise you we will not hide problems™ — That is, once we choose, I can commit that we will not hide the reasoning behind our choice. Some of it will not be full-public, as -of course- it includes important human interaction bits, but all important points will be made public. ¹ The fact that one of the Committee members left it, and is quite vocal on his opposition to the choice made by it, makes it clear to me that, even if the Committee had intended to keep quiet, the truth will come out. I'm sure Jonathan can comment on the decision process as he lived it. We don't have NDAs.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature